Gay marriage is none of the government's business

[caption id="attachment_71000" align="alignright" width="300"] Pat Dwyer, left, and Stephen Mosher hug during exchange of their marriage vows in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, April 26, 2011. The Supreme Court announced on Friday, Dec. 7, 2012, that it would enter the national debate over same-sex marriage, agreeing to hear a pair of cases challenging state and federal laws that define marriage to include only unions of a man and a woman. (Andrew Councill/The New York Times)[/caption]

IRVINE, David Y. Cantwell: It is inexcusable that the U.S. Supreme Court will now review the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, banning gay marriage [“Supreme Court will review Prop. 8,” Front Page, Dec. 8]. A great deal of emotion and remarkable resources are devoted to this issue, which begs the question: Why is government involved in such a personal question as marriage? Who gave government the right to make any judgments about marriage? Why should it be involved in any adult's choice or preference regarding marriage? When two people want to be married, shouldn't it be their business alone?

Yet today, this position is impractical because the government has invaded this personal place and created numerous laws that control and regulate marriage. Important rights like medical visitation and economics such as insurance coverage are affected. Even income tax is affected by marital status. How did we let this happen?

My sexuality, marital status or sexual preference should not be affected by government. If I want to marry, I should be able to without any aspect of government influence, interference or even incentive. How have we let the state come to permeate every aspect of our lives – even to the extreme that we let a judiciary decide who can marry, who can't and under what terms and conditions. A Supreme Court decision? On what grounds do they have to rule, let alone influence, what people do with their personal lives? We should be free to do as we like, provided we do not harm others.

Not long ago, some states made interracial marriage illegal. What a victory for bigots. Now, social-engineering laws like that are justified under the auspices of serving the greater good. Why do we tolerate this interference and control by well-intentioned people who think it is OK to tell others how to live?

The state has multiple marriage laws. There are requirements to be married. The state tells us we can file income taxes differently if we are married. Why do we allow government to control or regulate what people should be free to do among themselves?

This is just another example where we have ceded our personal sovereignty to the state. Don't agree? The state is in our bathrooms (how much water is permitted to flow through your showerhead, how much water in a toilet flush, etc.). Americans have permitted the state to control their homes.

There is great anguish by Christians who think the state should control people engaging in sinful behavior. This is outrageous. Who can point to scripture where Jesus suggested the force of government for anything?

Full disclosure: I am a Christian. I believe that marriage is a sacramental gift from God that both provides and protects people in a voluntary agreement. I am delighted to have been married to the girl of my dreams for 22 years. Being married has made our relationship better, helped us grow in spirit and maturity and brought us closer to God. I am a big believer in my version of marriage.

And so what? That is my business and should not be a standard or burden placed upon anyone else.

Nothing good can come from state involvement. People should be free to associate as they wish. When two people love each other, it is their business. What right does anyone have to impose his or her standards upon another in such a personal matter? If you disagree with this, look at the premises behind your objection. It's likely based upon an assumption that violates our personal liberty to make our own personal choices.

The court is having an illegitimate debate. Marriage is none of their business.

______

ORANGE, Grenneth Dunne: Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered have an absolute right to marry. Everyone is a person. The issue is who they want to be as long as they harm none. The issue is that religion forces others to forgo their right to their individual personhood. Religion is the problem. The religious ones want to force others against their will.

Why civil unions are preferable

MISSION VIEJO, Burl Estes: In his letter about gay marriage, “Don't deny gays marriage” [Dec. 11], Dang Dinh starts with the premise that gays have a “right” to marry and argues that gay couples who adopt “can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments.”

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words or videos of 30-seconds
each will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.